Dont'cha know that we have the world's fourth largest defence budget? Ergo there must be lots of troops, tanks and aircraft sitting around doing not a lot...


Hat, coat, door

Sounds about right. It would be nice if the current government stopped destroying the UKAF.

Not the Governments, of course. Just some of the hyper-rich individuals of a particular offshoot/sect of Islam.

Now ICBA to read all of this link (which doesn't work - Google Shia–Sunni relations ) ... it just indicates how bizarre some of the disagreements are. The fact remains that that are all, of whichever sect, making the Catholic/Protestant conflicts of the last millennium look like a squabble over who should have the last potato at Sunday Lunch.

Interesting article from that clear thinker, General Mike Rose saying what a lot of us have been saying.

I fear our panic stricken politicians are leading us into another bloody shambles in Iraq, by GENERAL SIR MICHAEL ROSE | Mail Online

Good article.

Bob C :ok:

Probably best CGS we never had, and stepson of one of my favourite authors, John Masters

I was always surprised he never got the top job but being outspoken
might have cost him.

Had a hell of a run as a Soldier - Ireland, Iranian Embassy, Falklands, Bosnia.

I think he was the General who refused to obey and order from ? someone in NATO ? and got away with it. A while since I read it.

No, that was General Mike Jackson

We never learn. I've filched from Wiki:

"In 1843 British army chaplain G.R. Gleig wrote a memoir of the disastrous (First) Anglo-Afghan War, of which he was one of the very few survivors. He wrote that it was....." :

"......a war begun for no wise purpose, carried on with a strange mixture of rashness and timidity, brought to a close after suffering and disaster, without much glory attached either to the government which directed, or the great body of troops which waged it. Not one benefit, political or military, was acquired with this war. Our eventual evacuation of the country resembled the retreat of an army defeated.[11]" (Sound familiar ?)

And now we hear, in all the Media, the universal lament about What Must be Done, and Should be Done, and What Needs to be Done, and the assembled Might of the UN and Security Council has been invoked, and evildoers tremble (?). And our Home Secretary announces that Further Legislation will be introduced..... (Small Mouse pipes up: "But who'll Bell the Cat ?" )

The brutal fact is that President Assad will have to be brought on board before anything can happen, for we cannot, and President Obama will not, put "boots on the ground", and ISIS will not be defeated in any other way. That we do not like him, and that he was yesterday's "baddie", is irrelevant. Seventy years ago we did not like Stalin very much, but we were glad to have Russia as our "Gallant Ally".

And:
"If Hitler invaded hell I would make at least a favourable reference to the devil in the House of Commons." - (Winston Churchill).

Your enemy's enemy is your friend !

The problem is, we should never have encouraged the Syrian opposition in the first place. Assad and his regime where fairly benign by middle eastern standards, and would have evolved on a much shorter time scale than most of the other states In the middle east.

Him and his missus loved a bit of the western way, so was easily manipulable within reason.

Now whats done is done, and frankly needs to be fixed. Personally I would like to see some groveling back up to him and Western boots on the ground.
Personally I think stop fighting against him, and our troops on the ground in Northen Iraqi.

rh

You might get your wish.

The Chairman of the Joint chiefs effectively said that IF ISIS threatened the US, then he thinks the US should go in and take them out lock stock and barrel in Syria and Iraq including boots on the ground and he would think the US Pres would think and do likewise.

He also said that at present it is a local issue but if the US did go in he would hope Saudi, Jordan one other would join the effort.

That's the most forthright thing I have seen said in a long while.

Danny, with all due deference and respect, I think in 2014 things aren't quite so simple anymore.

Lets take the last 40 years. Vietnam and South East Asia I don't even consider.

We have the US arming, training and assisting the mujahideen in Afghanistan against the USSR...including one Osama bin Laden.

The less extremist ones later just joined the Taliban.

We have the US arming and assisting Saddam's Iraq against the Ayatollah's Iran....an Iran armed with F-4 Phantoms and F-14 Tomcats that the US armed the Shah's Iran with in the first place.

Libya, Syria, Israel, the list goes on.

The enemy of my enemy is NOT necessarily my friend anymore. In fact, he may become a far worse enemy than my enemy.

That doesn't answer anything, I know. It's just a fact.

I wish to point out that some serious trouble began in Bosnia and other parts of "Former Yugoslavia" which elicited international/forgeign intervention.

NATO and US and various other sorts of troops and other assistance were still there in the mid 00's, and IIRC still in 2008.

Iraq is as yet not quite as mature as the Former Republics in terms of stabilizing their internal issues, so if any foreigners are to go in and or remain in Syria and / or Iraq, you would expect it to be for at least as long as in Bosnia, if not longer, since both Iraq and Syria a quite a bit bigger as problems to resolve goes. The US was in Iraq for 7-8 years ... and that was very expensive in terms of blood and treasure, as well as still a work in progress at best.

Maybe our governments ought to take a good hard look at the various lessons of the Former Yugoslavia break up issues and see what that predicts for any international efforts in Syria and / or Iraq.

I say this because one of my key frustrations with the Bush(43) administration is that Bosnia was still ongoing when we went into Iraq in 2003, and it was bloody obvious to me that the lessons of the ongoing in Bosnia seemed to not be folded into the plan for Iraq ... I think because it was "Clintons' war" and they didn't like Bill Clinton. A data point in support of my guess here is how General Shinseki was treated when he tried to tell DoD and President how much effort it would take to achieve their objectives. His premature departure speaks volumes to me, particuarly since he was doing his job as Chief of Staff of the Army in doing a thorough staff estimate on the Op Plan. (Some very good friends of mine spent far too many seven day weeks in DC/Pentagon working on that matter ... )

Further comments vigorously :mad:

Not listening to him cost the a heap of troops, a lot of time, money and effort and Ultimately Iraq itself.

The Sec being pig headed.

Posted this on the Ukraine thread, all interrelated.

What a wicked web we weave.

I wonder how she would feel if Russia openly conducted air strikes in Ukraine to protect its interests?

To be honest, the sudden expansion of ISIS just as the Ukraine thing hotted up, makes me wonder if they had a little guidance from Russia. It sure has the Yanks tied up in a bit of a not. Though the ISIS bit does give Obama a excuse to not get to involved in the Ukraine issue.

Maybe we should just start a combined thread named "Obamas Dyke and how many fingers does he have?" (no not his wife)":p.

Seems the UAE does have cojones...

BBC reporting I identified jets made air strikes on Libya without us approval. Fragments of GBU bomb casing found.... Us not happy that fighters they have sold are being used

I did chuckle at the comment "without US consultation" in the newspaper report here in Aus.

Other reports say the UAE and Turkey reports are not true.

Stiil, small voice: "ISIS seems to have turned into ISIL overnight. What might this signify ?" :confused:

Your view of history seems to differ from my recollection; the problems with Bosnia stemmed from the fact that Bill Clinton wouldn't get involved in Bosnia and it was only after he'd zipped up the Lewinsky saga (pun intended) and there had been several dozen massacres and atrocities committed that the Dayton Accord was agreed and the US put boots on the ground in the Balkans as part of NATO.

For 2 years or so, Bill Clinton avoided any attempt to deploy ground troops and US involvement was nearly entirely aerial.

Therefore, any reference to the Balkans as 'Clintons War' would be a little disingenuous.

Minigun, you are somewhat mistaken. The Lewinski saga came AFTER the US was already in Bosnia, boots on the ground. Check, your years, mate, the winter of 1995 is when US Army units road the rails and roads into Bosnia, and the fall of 1995 was when Dayton Agreement got hammered out. The blue dress and the blow job was after that, and the criticism on him was more closely linked to later operations in terms of that whole "wag the dog" mess. The year 1998 was when the Monica thing came to a head, so to speak.

Clinton wanted to get into Bosnia to help out sooner than he was able to. He tried to but he ran into trouble with Congress, blue helmets (backlash from the mess in Somalia, see also the Michael New case) and the funding of US ops (no the world's policeman anymore, Cold War is over) between 1991 and the eventual decision to get involved after the Dayton Agreement.

One of many problems to overcome with Congress vis a vis a Bosnia operation sooner was the already fecked up UN RoE dual key stupidity. The more rational argument was that you can't keep the peace if there is not first a peace keeping agreement. (That was actually a good point). Dayton put that to bed and in we went, under NATO RoE and not so much UN interference in basic functions. Note that in September of 1995 USS Normandy launched Tomahawks on Serbian air defense positions, which got the French and Russians crying for some political reason or other. That was also under Bill Clinton, and Admiral "Snuffy" Smith.

There were other issues that got domestic political opponents arguing against direct intervention. Some of this stemmed from Bosnia being the usual messy UN operation (UN was into Bosnia long before the US showed up with big units in NATO ... and there were some US support folks supporting UNISOM and UNPROFOR previously ...).

Before our boots were on the ground in Northern Bosnia, ops as Sharp Fence and Maritime Guard finally merged to become Operation Sharp Guard. (The arms embargo on FY had been supported by the US for some time).

It was very much "Clinton's War" to some partisans in the GOP, as was the Kosovo thing. The fact that he finally got some bipartisan support after a few years of trying is, of course, overlooked by same partisans in the GOP ... my own criticism of Clinton on Bosnia at the time was the impression he left of being led around the world by the nose by one CNN reporter named Christiana Amanpour. I am off topic, so I'll save that for another time.

The President who unequivocally would NOT go into Bosnia was President George H W Bush. He passed the torch, as well as the mess in Somalia, to Clinton in January of 1993.

Bombing probably off.
 

Just got a feeling. Western politicians got away with the big story from ten days ago with those poor ****ers stuck on the mountain. That's now off the front pages and telly, replaced by those poor abused kids in Rotherham ( a more suitable place to carpet bomb anyway perhaps, out of kindness to the rest of the UK)?
Its a just a great game, indulged in by Cameron and President Bam Bam when it suits. Western Combat pilots involved in this are smart guys but also sporadically disabused muppets (or even puppets).

More shite written about it here.
 

David Cameron mulls joining Obama in bombing Isis in Iraq | Politics | The Guardian


I mean it must be ******* awful to be an RAF combat pilot involved with this, with your mission orders coming from our present leader.


David Cameron mulls.....it says it all. This is the UK's PM who has yawned and stretched his way off a Cornish beach and finally and reluctantly trailed back to number 10,like a petulant child forced back to his school desk.
And what's on the table for him this week? A decision ( possibly a life and death one for someone, but that will be someone David doesn't know, and probably a little person anyway.
My guess he will lean over and copy (eventually) the child next to him, and that will be his snooty cool friend, President Bam Bam, of course. Bombs will reign.
Also on (year four now, remember) David's desk this term is the break up of the Union. Tricky one, that. On his watch, in a few days now, historically for ever noted, the whole state may begin to break up.....
People are launched onto missions, lives ruined, war continues and we have David Cameron actually, seemingly with good peoples lives in his hands. I just find this utterly depressing and totally incredible.


******* good luck, whoevers still serving whatever we now are.

It means that the press & politicians pulled their heads out and finally began referring to ISIL by the correct acronym - as some have been doing from day one.

Its been interesting to switch between national network news shows in the US and hear one anchor refer to ISIS and on the other network the anchor telling the same story about ISIL.

I'll support that, when they get off their asses in the millions pressuring their governments to band with the Shia, and us, and smite them.

No, thats not right. According to a few people here ALL Muslims are evil and we need to eradicate the entire religion... :rolleyes:

Minigun, you are somewhat mistaken. The Lewinski saga came AFTER the US was already in Bosnia, boots on the ground. Check, your years, mate, the winter of 1995 is when US Army units road the rails and roads into Bosnia, and the fall of 1995 was when Dayton Agreement got hammered out. The blue dress and the blow job was after that, and the criticism on him was more closely linked to later operations in terms of that whole "wag the dog" mess. The year 1998 was when the Monica thing came to a head, so to speak.

Mainly Aerial - as stated. Dates were a bit out, admittedly.

Clinton wanted to get into Bosnia to help out sooner than he was able to. He tried to but he ran into trouble with Congress, blue helmets (backlash from the mess in Somalia, see also the Michael New case) and the funding of US ops (no the world's policeman anymore, Cold War is over) between 1991 and the eventual decision to get involved after the Dayton Agreement.

Did he want to? or did he do what US Presidents always seem do (unless there is oil) and make the right noises and throw bills at congress knowing they would be defeated?

One of many problems to overcome with Congress vis a vis a Bosnia operation sooner was the already fecked up UN RoE dual key stupidity. The more rational argument was that you can't keep the peace if there is not first a peace keeping agreement. (That was actually a good point). Dayton put that to bed and in we went, under NATO RoE and not so much UN interference in basic functions. Note that in September of 1995 USS Normandy launched Tomahawks on Serbian air defense positions, which got the French and Russians crying for some political reason or other. That was also under Bill Clinton, and Admiral "Snuffy" Smith.

Fair points - Aerial though (maybe a splash on launch)

There were other issues that got domestic political opponents arguing against direct intervention. Some of this stemmed from Bosnia being the usual messy UN operation (UN was into Bosnia long before the US showed up with big units in NATO ... and there were some US support folks supporting UNISOM and UNPROFOR previously ...).

He was busy sorting out the economy. However, was he in a rush to get involved after the UNISOM fiasco? that argument can cut both ways.

Before our boots were on the ground in Northern Bosnia, ops as Sharp Fence and Maritime Guard finally merged to become Operation Sharp Guard. (The arms embargo on FY had been supported by the US for some time).

Aerial - bit of floating.

It was very much "Clinton's War" to some partisans in the GOP, as was the Kosovo thing. The fact that he finally got some bipartisan support after a few years of trying is, of course, overlooked by same partisans in the GOP ... my own criticism of Clinton on Bosnia at the time was the impression he left of being led around the world by the nose by one CNN reporter named Christiana Amanpour. I am off topic, so I'll save that for another time.

The President who unequivocally would NOT go into Bosnia was President George H W Bush. He passed the torch, as well as the mess in Somalia, to Clinton in January of 1993

Lone - as a resident of the Western colony I will take your word, but I would point out that it was never regarded as 'Clintons War' outside of N.America, quite the opposite.

However - you seem adamant and that is good enough for me bud.

Just been half watching a BBC 2 Newsnight special about this. Admiral Lord West spoke well and I agreed with him, but Lewd Ashdown and Dr Liam Fox.... I glazed over.
Thanks to all of this ****e I can probably reasonably expect to be blown to pieces at any time whilst travelling around within Britain on a train, tube, bus or plane.....thanks' a lot, everyone involved.

ISIS/ISIL ?
 

Green Knight121 (et al),

Thanks for the very complete explanation. Seems it's a case of "You pays yer penny and yer takes yer choice !"

D.

Suggest you learn to read and comprehend an entire paragraph, and not cherry pick a clause.

The "clinton's war" criticism was, as I stated, used by some GOP partisans. Go back and read what I posted in its entirety, please.

Other than that, we seem more or less to have reached an understanding.

I'm utterly depressed by all this, I just think we've been let down by our politicians and military leaders to the stage where it's downhill all the way. Sadly I don't think we can turn this around, what is happening in the middle east now will eventually find it's way here. I suspect it's only a matter of time before we see a suicide bomb at a main gate or a shooter or two, especially if we continue half baked military adventures and allowing human rights and open borders to compromise national security.
Solution? B******d if I know!

Regardless whether we like it or not, we are at war, is their any difference to a suicide bomber or a bomb being dropped from a plane. Its just a delivery method that has been developed to make it hard to intercept. Another words a technology equalizer.

The standard bearer of Islam’s latest lurch backwards to the eighth century is the newly minted Islamic State of Iran and Syria (ISIS). A fresh crop of Islamofascist thugs that make Fatah, Hezb’allah, Hamas, or al Qaeda seem enlightened. The new face of Islam is savage: beheading, crucifixion, slavery, and genocide. Demands are clear: “accept Islam or die.” The mad dogs of Muslim hell are off the choke chain.

ISIS is as dangerous a threat as western civilization has seen in a thousand years. It is serious. We need to address it. We are facing a monumental threat – a dangerous enemy that epitomizes evil – and all we have are random voices making occasional statements about the reality before us when we need a fierce army to overwhelm the evil darkness that seeks to consume us all.

Muslim terrorists have upped the ante and called America’s bluff again. Unlike the imaginary red lines drawn in the Oval Office, ISIS has drawn a bright red line with American blood.

Every single Senator and every single Congressperson needs to be making our national security the Number One priority. And they need to be doing it now. With a president who leaves a gaping void in sane leadership, it is all the more crucial that Congress step in to fill that void before terror fills it at a speed and at a magnitude none of us should even have to contemplate.

Deciding what to do should be a no brainer. Our deadly enemy, Islam, has finally taken to the battlefield! At last, they are out in the open, fighting a conventional war as an army and a state. This is the opportunity we could only wish for during the last decades. Jihadis from all over the world are pouring into Iraq to join ISIS, leaving the cover of their surrounding civilian populations and forming up as an army. They are fighting on our terms, on the battlefield, where we are supreme. At last, after years of frustration, we have the chance to engage and crush them.

When Sir Winston Churchill stood before Parliament on May 13, 1940, he said that the English people must “…wage war … with all our might and with all the strength that God can give us … against a monstrous tyranny….” The goal, he said, was clear: “… victory at all costs … in spite of all terror … for without victory, there is no survival.”

We now face what England faced when Churchill spoke: a monstrous tyranny. If we want to survive, we must be prepared to wage all out war.

Bob C

In my opinion ISIS (or whatever they are calling themselves today) have one redeeming feature.

They are fundamentally stupid.

They are basically calling the US out.

They honestly seem to think 'leave us alone or else' terrorist threats actually work, when essentially, eventually, they are just going to get smashed.

I actually also think that they really do think that they can beat the 'West' in 'battle', Allah willing.

These guys are much more of a threat than Saddam ever was..if the people representing We, The People in government do their jobs (put it to a Referendum..), ISIS should feel the FULL wrath of the Western Arsenal, for the first time since WW2 if necessary.

Just give it to them, wipe them all off the map, rid the vermin, nice and quick before they start really getting dangerous.

It has to happen soon. You can't keep poking a tiger in the eye. The sooner the better imo, get it over and done with.

Why do you think ISIS/ISIL/IS is a legitimate representation of Islam and all Muslims? The overwhelming majority of their victims and their most vociferous opponents are Muslim.

I'm loath to say we should take on these animals. It won't be me putting myself on the front line but I don't think we have any options.
I think we need to draw a line, make it clear to all states that they have one chance to decide which side of it they wish to be on and then crush all others.
If we don't we could be looking at decades of global conflict with no assurances as to the outcome.
Maybe we should be looking at domestic issues to. Making sure all understand where religion fits in with society. Even if that means some changes to cultures on all sides.



Posted from Pprune.org App for Android

"We will not be intimidated," President Barack Obama says in the wake of Steven Sotloff's beheading. "Justice will be served."...


I take that as, "We are currently forming a strategy for military action."

Typhoon 93, let's hope so, he didn't seem to have anything in the bag last week :eek:

We can only hope.

Although I have my doubts. If my doubts are correct then we will have to painfully wait until 2017, when Obama is out of office. This is a team effort requiring all available resources (not just military) to be utilised, and preferably without the command of the U.S - I'd rather we led the Operation. I would hate for Iraq III to be dragged on for as long as Iraq II and Afghanistan, too many families have been destroyed by the last two conflicts and that is the thing that bugs me the most.

Obama, by his own admission, doesn't have a strategy. He is following his preferred approach of "leading from behind".

Bob C :{

Robert, my hope is that the President is choosing to talk softly before he wields the big stick. Let's see how things play out.

As to this:
QSIS?

Why not call them AQSIS: Al Qeda's State in Iraq and Syria.

We would then actually have an AQSIS of Evil :E to deal with. See the above reference to a big stick.